AIBU To Think That Hunting Is More Ethical Than Golf?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I am having this discussion atm and I totally think I'm right. My reasons are:
Golf courses are a waste of land.
And water.
And chemicals.
And manpower.
Golf contributes nothing to anyone except golfers, their sponsors and bookies.

Whereas hunting needs people to look after the land, promoting conservation and natural biodiversity.

AIBU?

Chasing a terrified and exhausted animal and have a pack of other animals rip it apart for fun can never be acceptable.

Hounds out of control that rip someones cat apart and the huntsman just throws the body over a fence - this says it all about their attitude.

Huntsmen who deliberately lure foxes into areas where they hunt so that they can 'accidentally' come across one and chase it to circumvent the law.

All totally unacceptable

Someone who describes a golf course as "sterile AstroTurf" has clearly never been on one.
The closely mown areas form the minority of the course - ask any golfer and they'll tell how much Rough (mid to long grass) there is!

(As an aside, I've always thought hunting for food - in a sustainable ecosystem- is more ethical than farming animals for food. Not for sport though) . I live near a golf course and the manicured greens are a very small part of the vast area. No different to gardens that use pest control? And golf brings huge joy to many.

On average, 50% of a golf course comprises areas that are not mown, with greens making up less than 2% of course area.

Whereas hunting needs people to look after the land,

Who do you think cuts the fairways, manages the trees, organises who tees off when, sells the bacon rolls and pints in the clubhouse and books in visitors? Pixies?

Most hunting in the UK is in upland moor areas which wouldn't be suitable for a golf course. Most golf courses are in suburban areas not suitable for hunting.

This is however perhaps the most ridiculous debate i've read in a while.

Recommend the Malcolm Gladwell episode of his Revisionist History podcast on US golf - A Good Walk Ruined.

Basically, in LA, the owners of the land used for a v costly and ‘exclusive’ golf course, one of v few green spaces, paid v little for the land, then v little tax, and many years on still pay hardly any, after lobbying for and securing exemptions. So almost no one can access the green space.

When we say “hunting” are we talking about mile upon mile of sterile moorland being maintained with hundreds of birds bred in captivity released, and all top predators killed to “protect the game” or chasing foxes through farmland?

The two have different footprints.

@Dozer

Recommend the Malcolm Gladwell episode of his Revisionist History podcast on US golf - A Good Walk Ruined.

Basically, in LA, the owners of the land used for a v costly and ‘exclusive’ golf course, one of v few green spaces, paid v little for the land, then v little tax, and many years on still pay hardly any, after lobbying for and securing exemptions. So almost no one can access the green space.

I lived in Pennsylvania for a couple of years. Apart from a few state parks (quite a drive to get to) it was quite noticeable that the green spaces seemed to pretty much all be either cemeteries (far less cremation there) or golf courses.

But maybe golf course should all be built on to make thousands of identical semi detached houses with paved over back yards and tarmac drives. That'll be good for the environment.

Huge swathes of greenfield sites are being built on now.

I said earlier and would repeat that it depends on the type of hunting. People shooting rabbits on their land to protect crops and prevent over population is a fair point

However most larger scale hunting is nothing like that.

If hunting was about pest control to promote bio diversity then it would happen completely differently. The most efficient way to protect against foxes etc isn't a whole pack of people and dogs, that's just the most "fun" way.

Lots of areas deliberately breed and release animals like deer, and birds so someone can go and hunt them, they increase the population rather than help manage an excess . If it was about protecting a natural balance then wouldn't be deliberately introducing hundreds of the animals to the area, then killing whatever ones you could find in the knowledge you will always have lost a certain percentage of them.

@Dozer

Recommend the Malcolm Gladwell episode of his Revisionist History podcast on US golf - A Good Walk Ruined.

Basically, in LA, the owners of the land used for a v costly and ‘exclusive’ golf course, one of v few green spaces, paid v little for the land, then v little tax, and many years on still pay hardly any, after lobbying for and securing exemptions. So almost no one can access the green space.

Why do you think arch tax dodger Trump owns so many “exclusive” golf courses?

It’s worth remembering though that only a minority of courses are of the “exclusive” type picked out by Gladwell - 75% of US courses are public.

@Jumpingjackflash29

Very clever question OP. Based on the arguments you have written, I think, on balance, I’d have to agree with you. In comparing these 2, hunting does appear to be more morally sound.

But the arguments aren't based in fact. Read this and then decide whether hunting has no impact on the environment: waronwildlife.co.uk/2020/04/05/grouse-shooting-over-moorland-burning-banned/

Golf courses are not much less biodiverse than a typical farm. Sure, it's not 'natural', but neither is farmland.

OP's point about water use for golf courses is a good point, in some countries. We have so much rain that most courses aren't watered for at least 10 months of the year. In dry summer days, only the greens are watered of most golf courses - elite courses that you may see in TV are an exception.

Chasing a terrified and exhausted animal
Yes, hard to justify .
An animal in the wild doesn't move into a foxy care home when it's old and slow. It probably dies long and slowly of starvation - perhaps being torn to bits by hounds is the better option. Or perhaps it's eventually torn to bits by badgers or other foxes.
Using emotive language can work on both sides.
I haven't seen deer introduced in the U.K. for shooting. There's too many of them already where I live.
Hard to justify pheasant shooting but it makes money in the countryside - takeaway the moorland shooting and you can end up with acres of conifer afforestation. Not much in the way of diverse wildlife in those.
So it's not a straight hunting always bad. Much of the deer shooting permits are to protect the new conifer planting from being eaten by them.

Whilst it should not be the case, I would argue that golf reduces the divorce rate and broken families. Those who take part are having space and time away from the home, which may benefit their spouse. The Covid pandemic has shown how difficult for some couples if they do not have some time to themselves.

I think we also need to factor in what deliberately torturing animals for fun in an organised manner does to our humanity and consider which humans ultimately pay the price of the detachment from anyone's pain which is the ultimate result if we're going to consider the 'ethicality' of hunting. If the golf course managers were getting off on the moles they get rid of I'd be more concerned.

@Sundances I haven't seen deer introduced in the U.K. for shooting. There's too many of them already where I live

Introduced to Scottish islands after clearances, for a start.

Game birds are bred intensively still. You find chicks in pens this time of year.

Applies to near eating too

Meat
And golfers ? They get off as they don't do the killing?

Clearances were ?1700s

If the OP's original question distinguished properly between environmental and moral/ethical concerns this thread would be less of a muddle.

The Clearances in the 18th and 19th centuries paved the way for the creation of the huge Highland sporting estates, particularly the deer forests.

@Sundances

Clearances were ?1700s

They were, but they were the event that changed the land to make it hunting friendly. It didn't always used to be all heather moors round here. People were burned out of their homes and left to starve on the side of the road, it was genocide. And the conditions created in the 1700s have been artificially maintained since then.

I'm not one for the Scottish 'centuries of hurt' narrative, but any discussion of the ethical nature of hunting in the UK needs to note that it is a practice began in blood. Especially when comparing it to golf, which may have nearly bored me to death on more than one occasion, but hasn't really killed anyone.

As a New Forest native I can assure you that hunting destroys crops, farm borders and is entirely useless as a culling method. Farmers loathe the hunt

Every hunt is different. In every area I’ve lived, prior to the ban, farmers welcomed the hunt because foxes are vermin and go on killing sprees in hen coups and fields of newborn lambs. It wasn’t unusual for a farmer to call the hunt because of a particular dog fox that resided in a specific covert and had developed a taste for lambs! The huntsman would flush that covert first and try to put hounds on that scent. Other methods of fox control are crueler in my opinion eg lamping is legal but doesn’t guarantee a kill, so the fox might be injured and die slowly from gangrene with a bullet in its leg.

Some hunts may damage crops and cut wire or not pay for accidental damages. Other hunts are meticulous about such things and many of the farmers themselves hunt. You can’t generalise based on one area!

I have no problem with fox hunting, but only on the proviso I can hunt the hunters. Seems fair.

I wonder how many of you against hunting don't mind having a KFC or a sausage sandwich?

I voted yanbu because you’re right about the problems with golf - and probably other sports as well.

However I’m sure that conservation and the chilling of over populous animals etc can be achieved in a kinder and less gleeful way.